[375] 3 Wheat. 336 (1818). See also Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U.S. 240 (1891) which followed this rule and which seems to contain a rule analogous to the "silence of Congress" doctrine applied in cases involving State legislation which affect interstate commerce.
[376] Ibid. 389.
[377] The St. Lawrence, 1 Bl. 522, 527 (1862).
[378] The "Lottawanna," 21 Wall. 558, 576, (1875); see also Janney v. Columbian Ins. Co., 10 Wheat. 411, 418 (1825), where it was held that the admiralty jurisdiction rests on the grant in the Constitution and can only be exercised under the laws of the United States extending that grant to the respective courts of the United States.
[379] 4 Wall. 411, 431, (1867); The Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 555 (1867).
[380] Knapp, Stout & Co. v. McCaffrey, 177 U.S. 638 (1900); Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co., 264 U.S. 109 (1924).
[381] Chelentis v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 247 U.S. 372 (1918).
[382] Rodd v. Heartt, 21 Wall. 558 (1875).
[383] Old Dominion S.S. Co. v. Gilmore, 207 U.S. 398 (1907).
[384] Ibid.